[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23972-23978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11174]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-489-807]


Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent 
Not to Revoke in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY:  In response to a request by the petitioner and one producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce is 
conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain steel concrete reinforcing bars from Turkey. This review covers 
three manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United 
States. This is the fifth period of review, covering April 1, 2001, 
through March 31, 2002.
    We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below 
the normal value by only two of the respondents in this proceeding, 
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal 
Endustrisi A.S. In addition, we have preliminarily determined to 
rescind the review with respect to Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve 
Ticaret A.S./Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S./Diler Dis 
Ticaret A.S. and Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. because these companies had 
no shipments of subject merchandise during the period of review. If 
these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of this 
review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries.
    Finally, we have preliminarily determined not to revoke the 
antidumping duty order with respect to ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve 
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.
    We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary 
results. Parties who wish to submit comments in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument: (1) a statement of the issue; 
and (2) a brief summary of the argument.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 6, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin or Elizabeth Eastwood, 
Office of AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 2, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone 
(202) 482-0656 or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 23973]]

Background

    On April 2, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of ``Opportunity to Request 
an Administrative Review'' of the antidumping duty order on certain 
steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Turkey (67 FR 15527).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), on April 30, 2002, the 
Department received a request from ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim 
Sanayi, A.S. (ICDAS) to conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on rebar from Turkey. As part of this request, 
ICDAS also requested that the Department revoke the dumping order with 
regard to it, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(b). In accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on April 30, 2002, the Department also received a 
request for an administrative review from the petitioner, Gerdau 
AmeriSteel Corporation,\1\ for the following five producers/exporters 
of rebar: Colakoglu Metalurji A.S. and Colakoglu Dis Ticaret 
(collectively ``Colakoglu''); Diler Demir Celik Endustrisi ve Ticaret 
A.S., Yazici Demir Celik Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S., and Diler Dis Ticaret 
A.S. (collectively ``Diler''); Ekinciler Demir Celik A.S. (Ekinciler); 
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. (Habas); and 
ICDAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Effective October 23, 2002, the petitioner, AmeriSteel 
Corporation combined its operations with the company Co-Steel Inc. 
under the name Gerdau AmeriSteel Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2002, the Department initiated an administrative review for 
Colakoglu, Diler, Ekinciler, Habas, and ICDAS and we issued 
questionnaires to them. See Initiation of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation 
in Part, 67 FR 36148 (May 23, 2002).
    On May 13, 2002, Diler and Ekinciler informed the Department that 
they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the period of review (POR). We reviewed Customs Service data and 
confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise from either 
company. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and 
consistent with our practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our 
review for Diler and Ekinciler. For further discussion, see the 
``Partial Rescission of Review'' section of this notice, below.
    On July 25, 2002, Habas requested that the Department modify its 
reporting requirement with respect to home market sales, in light of 
the fact that Habas only made U.S. sales in certain months of the POR. 
In August 2002, we granted this request and shortened Habas' reporting 
period to April 1 through September 30, 2001. For further discussion, 
see the memorandum to Louis Apple from Irina Itkin entitled ``Request 
by Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustri A.S. for a Shortened 
Reporting Period in the 2001-2002 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' dated 
August 14, 2002.
    In July and August 2002, we received responses to sections A 
through C of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections regarding sales to 
the home market and the United States) and Section D of the 
questionnaire (i.e., the section regarding cost of production (COP) and 
constructed value (CV)) from Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS.
    In August, September, and October 2002, we issued supplemental 
questionnaires to these companies. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in September, October, November, and December 2002.
    On September 29, 2002, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results of this review until no later than April 30, 2003. See Certain 
Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Notice of Extension of 
Time Limit for Preliminary Results in Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 67 FR 61595 (Oct. 1, 2002).
    We verified the sales information submitted by Colakoglu, Habas, 
and ICDAS in October and November 2002. In December 2002 and January 
2003, we requested and received revised databases from Colakoglu and 
ICDAS (home market sales only) incorporating our findings at 
verification.
    In February, March, and April 2003, we issued additional 
supplemental questionnaires regarding the submitted COP data to 
Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS. We received responses to these 
questionnaires in March and April 2003.

Scope of the Review

    The product covered by this review is all stock deformed steel 
concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths and coils. This 
includes all hot-rolled deformed rebar rolled from billet steel, rail 
steel, axle steel, or low-alloy steel. It excludes (i) plain round 
rebar, (ii) rebar that a processor has further worked or fabricated, 
and (iii) all coated rebar. Deformed rebar is currently classifiable in 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item 
numbers 7213.10.000 and 7214.20.000. The HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the 
scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

Period of Review

    The POR is April 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, Diler and Ekinciler informed the Department that 
they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. We have confirmed this with the Customs Service. 
Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 
the Department's practice, we are preliminarily rescinding our review 
with respect to Diler and Ekinciler. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Administrative Review, 67 FR 66110, 66111 (Oct. 30, 2002) 
(2000-2001 Rebar Review).

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke in Part

    On April 30, 2002, ICDAS submitted a letter to the Department 
requesting revocation of the antidumping duty order with respect to its 
sales of the subject merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b).
    The Department ``may revoke, in whole or in part'' an antidumping 
duty order upon completion of a review under section 751 of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). While Congress has not specified the 
procedures that the Department must follow in revoking an order, the 
Department has developed a procedure for revocation that is described 
in 19 CFR 351.222. 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) notes that the Secretary may 
revoke an antidumping duty order in part if the Secretary concludes, 
inter alia, that one or more exporters or producers covered by the 
order have sold the subject merchandise in commercial quantities at not 
less than normal value (NV) for a period of at least three consecutive 
years. See Notice of Final Results of the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke the Antidumping 
Duty Order: Brass Sheet and Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 742, 743 
(Jan. 6, 2000).
    ICDAS's request was accompanied by a certification that it had not 
sold the subject merchandise at not less that NV during the current POR 
and will not sell the merchandise at less than NV in the future. ICDAS 
further certified that it sold the subject merchandise to the United 
States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. The company also agreed to

[[Page 23974]]

immediate reinstatement of the antidumping duty order, as long as any 
exporter or producer is subject to the order, if the Department 
concludes that, subsequent to the revocation, ICDAS sold the subject 
merchandise at less than NV.
    In this administrative review, we preliminarily find that ICDAS, in 
fact, did not sell the subject merchandise in commercial quantities in 
each of the three consecutive years forming the basis of the request. 
As such, we preliminarily find that ICDAS does not qualify for 
revocation. For further discussion see the memorandum to Louis Apple 
from the Team entitled ``Request by ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve 
Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. for Revocation in the 2001-2002 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey,'' dated April 30, 2003.

Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(3)(a) of the Act, we verified sales 
information provided by all the respondents. We used standard 
verification procedures, including examination of relevant sales and 
financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the 
company-specific verification reports placed in the case file in the 
Central Records Unit, main Commerce building, room B-099.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of rebar from Turkey were made in the 
United States at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to the 
NV. Because Turkey's economy experienced significant inflation during 
the POR, as is Department practice, we limited our comparisons to home 
market sales made during the same month in which the U.S. sale occurred 
and did not apply our ``90/60'' contemporaneity rule (see, e.g., 
Certain Porcelain on Steel Cookware from Mexico: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 62 FR 42496, 42503 (Aug. 7, 
1997)). This methodology minimizes the extent to which calculated 
dumping margins are overstated or understated due solely to price 
inflation that occurred in the intervening time period between the U.S. 
and home market sales.
    When making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the 
Act, we considered all products sold in the home market as described in 
the ``Scope of the Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in 
the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate 
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of 
identical merchandise in the home market made in the ordinary course of 
trade (i.e., sales within the same month which passed the cost test), 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the 
characteristics listed in sections B and C of our antidumping 
questionnaire, or CV, as appropriate.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we first attempted 
to compare products produced by the same company and sold in the U.S. 
and home markets that were identical with respect to the following 
characteristics: form, grade, size, and ASTM specification. Where there 
were no home market sales of foreign like product that were identical 
in these respects to the merchandise sold in the United States, we 
compared U.S. products with the most similar merchandise sold in the 
home market based on the characteristics listed above, in that order of 
priority. Where we were unable to match U.S. sales to home market sales 
of foreign like product, we based NV on CV.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS, we used EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed 
export price methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts 
of record. We adjusted the reported data based on our findings at 
verification. For further discussion, see the April 30, 2003, memoranda 
to the file entitled ``Calculations Performed for Habas Sinai ve Tibbi 
Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi A.S. for the Preliminary Results in the 
2001-2002 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' (Habas Sales Calculation 
Memorandum) and ``Calculations Performed for ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane 
ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (ICDAS) for the Preliminary Results in the 2001-
2002 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete 
Reinforcing Bars from Turkey,'' (ICDAS Sales Calculation Memorandum).
A. Colakoglu
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for inspection fees, lashing and 
loading expenses, demurrage expenses, overage premium expenses, crane 
charges (offset by freight commission revenue, wharfage revenue, 
despatch revenue, demurrage commission revenue, agency fee revenue, 
attendance fee revenue, and other freight-related revenue), and ocean 
freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
B. Habas
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, surveying expenses, brokerage and handling expenses, ocean 
freight expenses, and marine insurance expenses, where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
C. ICDAS
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, freight commission expenses, surveying expenses, brokerage 
and handling fees, loading expenses, demurrage expenses (offset by 
despatch revenue), overage premium expenses, ocean freight expenses, 
marine insurance expenses, and U.S. customs duties, where appropriate, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability
    In order to determine whether there is a sufficient volume of sales 
in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV (i.e., 
the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
is five percent or more of the aggregate volume of U.S. sales), we 
compared the volume of each respondent's home market sales of the 
foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based 
on this comparison, we determined that each respondent had a viable 
home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market 
sales.
    For each respondent, in accordance with our practice, we excluded 
home market sales of non-prime merchandise made during the POR from our 
preliminary analysis based on the limited quantity of such sales in the 
home market and the fact that no such sales were made to the United 
States during the POR. (See, e.g., Final Determinations of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 
Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products, and Certain Cut-to-Length

[[Page 23975]]

Carbon Steel Plate from Korea, 58 FR 37176, 37180 (July 9, 1993); 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 21634, 21636 
(May 1, 2002) (unchanged by the final results) (Rebar 2000-2001 Review 
Prelim); Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 56274 (Nov. 7, 
2001) and accompanying decision memorandum at Comment 1.) We made 
adjustments to Habas' reported data based on our findings at 
verification. See the Habas Sales Calculation Memorandum.
B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's Length Test
    Colakoglu, Habas, and ICDAS made sales of rebar to affiliated 
parties in the home market during the POR. Consequently, we tested 
these sales to ensure that they were made at ``arm's length'' prices, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To conduct this test, we compared 
the unit prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers net 
of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. 
Where prices to the affiliated party were on average 99.5 percent or 
more of the price to the unaffiliated parties at the same level of 
trade (LOT), we determined that these sales were made at arm's length 
(see Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 
27295, 27355 (May 19, 1997)). In accordance with the Department's 
practice,\2\ we only included in our margin analysis those sales to 
affiliated parties that were made at arm's length.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that the Department recently adopted a new arm's 
length test whereby sales to affiliates will be determined to be at 
arm's length if the prices are, on average, within a range of 98 
percent to 102 percent of prices to unaffiliated customers. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary 
Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002). The Department's new 
arm's length test is only applicable to investigations and reviews 
initiated on or after November 23, 2002, which is subsequent to the 
initiation of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Cost of Production Analysis
    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, for Colakoglu, 
Habas, and ICDAS there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 
that these respondents had made home market sales at prices below their 
COPs in this review because the Department had disregarded sales that 
failed the cost test for these companies in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding in which these companies participated (i.e., 
the 2000-2001 administrative review for Colakoglu and Habas and the 
1999-2000 administrative review for ICDAS). As a result, the Department 
initiated an investigation to determine whether these companies had 
made home market sales during the POR at prices below their COPs. See 
2000-2001 Rebar Review, 67 FR at 66111. See also, Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 56274, 56275 (Nov. 7, 2001).

1. Calculation of COP

    As noted above, we determined that the Turkish economy experienced 
significant inflation during the POR. Therefore, in order to avoid the 
distortive effect of inflation on our comparison of costs and prices, 
we requested that each respondent submit the product-specific cost of 
manufacturing (COM) incurred during each month of the reporting period. 
We calculated a period-average COM for each product after indexing the 
reported monthly costs during the reporting period to an equivalent 
currency level using the Turkish Wholesale Price Index from the 
International Financial Statistics published by the International 
Monetary Fund. We then restated the period-average COMs in the currency 
values of each respective month.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated COP 
based on the sum of the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication 
for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative expenses (G&A), interest expenses, and home market 
packing costs. See the ``Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices'' 
section below for treatment of home market selling expenses.
    In calculating COP, the Department recently implemented a change in 
practice regarding the treatment of foreign exchange gains or losses. 
See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from India: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 11045 (Mar. 7, 2003) 
(Mushrooms from India). The Department's previous practice was to have 
respondents identify the source of all foreign exchange gains and 
losses (e.g., debt, accounts receivable, accounts payable, cash 
deposits) at both a consolidated and unconsolidated corporate level. At 
the consolidated level, the current portion of foreign exchange gains 
and losses generated by debt or cash deposits were included in the 
interest expense rate computation. At the unconsolidated producer 
level, foreign exchange gains and losses on accounts payable were 
either included in the G&A rate computation, or under certain 
circumstances, in the cost of manufacturing. Gains and losses on 
accounts receivable at both the consolidated and unconsolidated 
producer levels were excluded from the COP and CV calculations. In 
addition, for Turkish high inflation cases, at the unconsolidated 
level, we excluded exchange gains and losses on raw material purchases 
due to the fact that our replacement cost methodology already accounted 
for the effect of high inflation on raw material purchases.
    Under the Department's new methodology, instead of splitting apart 
the foreign exchange gains and losses as reported in an entity's 
financial statements, we will now normally include in the interest 
expense computation all foreign exchange gains and losses. In doing so, 
we will no longer include a portion of foreign exchange gains and 
losses from two different financial statements (i.e., consolidated and 
unconsolidated producer). Instead, we will only include the foreign 
exchange gains and losses reported in the financial statement of the 
same entity used to compute each respondent's net interest expense 
rate. This new approach recognizes that the key measure is not 
necessarily what generated the exchange gain or loss, but rather how 
well the entity as a whole was able to manage its foreign currency 
exposure in any currency. As such, with the exception of the unusual 
circumstances related to exchange gains and losses generated by 
purchased raw materials in Turkish high inflation cases, for these 
preliminary results, we included all other foreign exchange gains or 
losses in the interest expense rate computation.
    We have followed in this preliminary determination the new policy 
announced in Mushrooms from India, but we have made some modifications 
to account for the fact that Turkey experienced high inflation during 
the POR. We note that in the instant case, with regard to foreign 
exchange gains and losses related to purchased raw materials, we have 
continued to exclude such amounts at the unconsolidated level due to 
the fact that these amounts have been accounted for through the 
Department's replacement cost methodology. In certain fact-specific 
situations, such as this case where high inflation in Turkey exists and 
constant currency financial statements are not prepared, it may be 
necessary for the Department to deviate slightly from its new general 
practice regarding the treatment of foreign exchange gains or losses. 
As noted in Mushrooms from India, we will address exceptions on a case-
by-case basis.

[[Page 23976]]

    As this is a change in practice, we invite the parties to the 
proceeding to comment on this issue.
    We relied on the COP information the respondents provided in their 
questionnaire responses, except for the following adjustments:
A. Colakoglu
1. Colakoglu has claimed a proprietary item as a by-product offset to 
its electricity production costs. Although we have treated this item as 
a by-product in past segments of this proceeding, we have reconsidered 
this position for purposes of the preliminary results. Therefore, we 
have reclassified this item as a co-product. Due to the proprietary 
nature of this information, we are unable to discuss it here.
    For further discussion, see the Preliminary Calculation Memorandum 
from Nancy Decker to Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,'' dated 
April 30, 2003.
B. Habas
1. We revised the G&A rate calculation to exclude dividend income.
2.We revised the financial expense rate calculation to include all 
foreign exchange gains and losses, with the exception of foreign 
exchange gains and losses on raw material purchases. See the policy 
change discussed above.
    For further discussion, see the memorandum from Heidi Schriefer to 
Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Determination,'' dated 
April 30, 2003.
C. ICDAS
1. We revised the reported total COM related to ICDAS's claim for an 
adjustment for start-up costs. Specifically, we revised the start-up 
adjustment to reflect an earlier end to the start-up period. In 
addition, we decreased the time period used to amortize costs related 
to the difference between the actual costs and the cost of production 
calculated for the start-up costs.
2. We reclassified the foreign exchange gains earned by ICDAS on home 
market sales made in foreign currency from G&A expense to financial 
expense. In addition, we revised the financial expense rate calculation 
to include all foreign exchange gains and losses, with the exception of 
foreign exchange gains and losses on raw material purchases. See the 
policy change discussed above.
    For further discussion, see the memorandum from Sheikh M. Hannan to 
Neal Halper entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results,'' dated April 30, 2003.

2. Test of Home Market Sales Prices

    We compared the weighted-average COP figures to home market prices 
of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the 
Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices 
below the COP. On a product-specific basis, we compared the COP to home 
market prices, less any applicable movement charges, selling expenses, 
and packing expenses.
    Regarding the indirect selling expense ratios calculated for 
certain of ICDAS's affiliated resellers, we note that the ratios 
provided at verification contain errors. See the memorandum from Irina 
Itkin and Elizabeth Eastwood to Louis Apple entitled ``Verification of 
the Sales Questionnaire Responses of Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve 
Ulasim Sanayi A.S. in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (Rebar) from Turkey,'' dated 
December 12, 2002, at page 18. Consequently, because we requested in 
the verification outline that ICDAS provide an accurate calculation of 
these expenses based on its financial data and ICDAS did not do so in 
the time allotted for verification, we have based the indirect selling 
expenses for certain downstream sales on facts available, in accordance 
with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. That provision requires the use 
of facts available when an interested party provides information that 
cannot be verified. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides 
that in selecting from the facts available, the Department may use an 
inference adverse to the interested party if that party has failed to 
cooperate to the best of its ability. As noted in the ICDAS Sales 
Calculation Memorandum, ICDAS had the ability to provide accurate 
selling expense information to the Department but failed to do so. 
Accordingly, we find that ICDAS failed to cooperate by not acting to 
the best of its ability, in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, 
and thus we find that an adverse inference is appropriate. As adverse 
facts available, we have based the indirect selling expenses for 
certain downstream sales on the highest indirect selling expense ratio 
reported for ICDAS or any of its affiliates. For further discussion, 
see the ICDAS Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined whether such sales were made: 1) in 
substantial quantities within an extended period of time; and 2) at 
prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable 
period of time. See sections 773(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D) of the Act.

3. Results of the COP Test

    Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20 
percent of a respondent's sales of a given product were at prices less 
than the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that product 
because we determined that the below-cost sales were not made in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product were at prices below the COP, we found that 
sales of that model were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time (as defined in section 773(b)(2)(B) of the 
Act), in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act. In such 
cases, we also determined that such sales were not made at prices which 
would permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, 
in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. Therefore, for 
purposes of this administrative review, we disregarded these below-cost 
sales for each of the three respondents and used the remaining sales as 
the basis for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 
the Act. For those U.S. sales of rebar for which there were no 
comparable home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared EP to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV 
based on the sum of the respondent's cost of materials, fabrication, 
selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), profit, and U.S. 
packing costs. In accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we 
based SG&A and profit on the amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondent in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
foreign country.
D. Level of Trade
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent 
practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at 
the same LOT as EP. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in 
the comparison market or, when NV is based on CV, that of the sales 
from which we derive selling, SG&A, and profit. For EP, the U.S. LOT is 
also the level of the starting-price sale, which is usually from the 
exporter to the unaffiliated U.S. customer.
    To determine whether NV sales are at a different LOT than EP sales, 
we examine stages in the marketing process

[[Page 23977]]

and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the 
producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales 
are at a different LOT and the difference affects price comparability, 
as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the 
sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
    All respondents claimed that they made home market sales at only 
one LOT. We analyzed the information on the record for each company and 
found that two of these respondents, Colakoglu and Habas, performed 
essentially the same marketing functions in selling to all of their 
home market and U.S. customers, regardless of customer category (e.g., 
end user, distributor). Therefore, we determine that these sales are at 
the same LOT. We further determine that no LOT adjustment is warranted 
for these respondents.
    Regarding ICDAS, however, we found that this company performs 
additional selling functions on certain home market sales. 
Specifically, we found that ICDAS performs an additional layer of 
selling functions on its sales through affiliated distributors which 
are not performed on its sales to unaffiliated customers. Because these 
additional selling functions are significant, we find that ICDAS's 
sales through affiliated distributors are at a different LOT than its 
direct sales to unaffiliated parties. We further find that the LOT for 
U.S. sales is the same as the home market LOT for ICDAS's direct sales 
to unaffiliated parties because the selling functions performed by 
ICDAS are essentially the same in both markets. Consequently, we 
compared ICDAS's EP sales to sales at the same LOT in the home market 
(i.e., ICDAS's direct home market sales), where possible. Where we 
could not compare EP sales to home market sales of the most similar 
product at the same LOT, we made an LOT adjustment in accordance with 
section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. For further discussion, see the 
memorandum entitled ``Concurrence Memorandum,'' dated April 30, 2003.
E. Calculation of Normal Value

1. Colakoglu

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales which were negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used 
the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the Turkish lira (TL) price adjusted 
for kur farki (i.e., an adjustment to the TL invoice price to account 
for the difference between the estimated and actual TL value on the 
date of payment), because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar 
price, and this price remained unchanged; the buyer merely paid the TL-
equivalent amount at the time of payment. This treatment is consistent 
with our treatment of these transactions in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding. See Rebar 2000-2001 Review Prelim, 67 FR at 
21637 (unchanged in the final results). Where appropriate, we made 
deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses (offset by interest revenue), bank charges, and exporter 
association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using POR-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of the 
POR, as described above.

2. Habas

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. 
Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410(c), 
we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit expenses and 
exporter association fees.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment on the difference in the variable costs of 
manufacturing for the foreign like product and subject merchandise, 
using period-average costs as adjusted for inflation for each month of 
the reporting period, as described above.

3. ICDAS

    We based NV on the starting prices to home market customers. For 
those home market sales which were negotiated in U.S. dollars, we used 
the U.S.-dollar price, rather than the TL price adjusted for kur farki, 
because the only price agreed upon was a U.S.-dollar price, and this 
price remained unchanged. For further discussion, see above.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.410(c), we made circumstance-of-sale adjustments for credit 
expenses, exporter association fees, and bank charges. Regarding the 
home market credit expenses reported for certain of ICDAS's downstream 
sales, ICDAS based the credit period for these transactions on the 
average age of each affiliate's accounts receivable (rather than 
transaction-specific periods); however, we found at verification that 
payments for individual transactions could reasonably be tied to the 
corresponding invoices. See the memorandum from Irina Itkin and 
Elizabeth Eastwood to Louis Apple entitled ``Verification of the Sales 
Questionnaire Responses of the Affiliated Resellers of Icdas Celik 
Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 
Turkey,'' dated December 6, 2002, at page 4. Consequently, because we 
requested that ICDAS report these expenses on a transaction-specific 
basis and it did not do so, we have based the amount of credit expenses 
for the sales in question on facts available, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. That provision requires the use of 
facts available when an interested party provides information that 
cannot be verified. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides 
that in selecting from the facts available, the Department may use an 
inference that is adverse to the interested party if that party has 
failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Because ICDAS had the 
ability to provide accurate transaction-specific information to the 
Department but failed to do so, we find that ICDAS failed to cooperate 
by not acting to the best of its ability, in accordance with section 
776(b) of the Act, and thus we find that an adverse inference is 
appropriate. As adverse facts available, we have disallowed home market 
credit expenses for these transactions. For further discussion, see the 
ICDAS Sales Calculation Memorandum.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6) of the Act.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments to NV to account for 
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We based this adjustment

[[Page 23978]]

on the difference in the variable costs of manufacturing for the 
foreign like product and subject merchandise, using POR-average costs 
as adjusted for inflation for each month of the POR, as described 
above.
    Finally, we made an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.412, where appropriate.
    For CV-to-EP comparisons, we made an adjustment, where appropriate, 
for differences in credit expenses, in accordance with 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act.

Currency Conversion

    The Department's preferred source for daily exchange rates is the 
Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Federal Reserve Bank does not track 
or publish exchange rates for Turkish Lira. Therefore, we made currency 
conversions based on exchange rates from the Dow Jones News/Retrieval 
Service.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for the 
respondents during the period April 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Manufacturer/Producer/Exporter              Margin Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colakoglu Metalurji A.S...................                          1.75
Habas Sinai ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal                                2.42
 Endustrisi A.S...........................
ICDAS Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim                                0.34
 Sanayi, A.S..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Interested parties may request a 
hearing within 30 days of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will 
be held two days after the date rebuttal briefs are filed. Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 37 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Department will issue the final results of the administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary 
results.
    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on 
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Habas 
and ICDAS, for those sales with a reported entered value, we have 
calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the 
total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to 
the total entered value of those sales.
    Regarding all of Colakoglu's sales and certain of ICDAS's sales, 
for assessment purposes, we do not have the information to calculate 
entered value because these companies were not the importers of record 
for the subject merchandise. Accordingly, we have calculated importer-
specific assessment rates for the merchandise in question by 
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each 
importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. 
To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in 
accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 
calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the EPs. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct the Customs Service 
to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The 
Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs 
Service.
    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of rebar from Turkey entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates established in the final results of this 
review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore, de 
minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106, the cash deposit will be 
zero; 2) for previously investigated companies not listed above, the 
cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the less than fair value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 16.06 percent, the all 
others rate established in the LTFV investigation.
    These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until publication of the final results of the next administrative 
review.
    This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their 
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 30, 2003.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 03-11174 Filed 5-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S